Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) · Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) Acanthocybium solandri,...

Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi)

Acanthocybium solandri, Coryphaena hippurus

North Atlantic, South AtlanticFloating object purse seine

July 11, 2016 (updated December 14, 2016)

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by externalscientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does notconstitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of thereviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

®

®

®

Fisheries Standard Version F2

© Duane Raver

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

Appendix B: Update Summary

2

About Seafood WatchMonterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainableseafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase productionin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makesits science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Eachreport synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, thenevaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “BestChoices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fisherymanagement plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, andmembers of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices.Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each specieschanges, Seafood Watch ’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updatedto reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch andSeafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

3

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatchfisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment?How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?How effective is the fishery’s management?How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocketguide and online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm othermarine life or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

SummaryThis report focuses on the associated (floating object) purse seine fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. The primarytarget species of this fishery are tuna, which have been covered in other published Seafood Watch reports. Thetarget species for this report are secondary target species: mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) and wahoo(Acanthocybium solandri). These species are not typically captured in FAD-free purse seine sets.

Wahoo and mahi mahi are fast-growing species that reach sexual maturity at a young age and produce a largenumber of young. Full assessments of mahi mahi and wahoo have not been conducted. There is someindication that mahi mahi populations are stable. Additional species included in this report as other “mainspecies” include tuna and several bycatch species (sharks, finfish, and turtles). There is considerable concernover the status of silky and oceanic white tip sharks, along with sea turtles. Yellowfin and bigeye tunapopulations are also of concern. Some measures have been put into place to protect sharks (prohibiting captureof several species) and there are data-reporting requirements. But overall, management of bycatch speciescaught in purse seine fisheries is considered ineffective.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) manages these species in theAtlantic Ocean. Management measures are in place for most of these species, and some measures specific topurse seine gears are in place as well.

Purse seine gears typically have little contact with bottom habitats, although fish aggregating devices (FADs) canbe anchored to the bottom. The incidental capture of ecologically important species may be a concern,particularly in the associated fishery.

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Summary

All species caught in the Atlantic associated purse seine fishery have an overall recommendation of "Avoid".

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern , and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION 1:IMPACTS ONTHE SPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

WahooNorth At lant ic,Float ing objectpurse seine

Green (3.318) Red (1.000) Red (1.732) Red (2.000) Avoid (1.841)

Dolphinfish (MahiMahi)North At lant ic,Float ing objectpurse seine


Dolphinfish (MahiMahi)South At lant ic,Float ing objectpurse seine


WahooSouth At lant ic,Float ing objectpurse seine


2

2

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report focuses on the associated (floating object) purse seine fishery in the Atlantic Ocean. The primarytarget species of this fishery are tuna, which have been covered in other published Seafood Watch reports. Thetarget species for this report are secondary target species: mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) and wahoo(Acanthocybium solandri). These species are not typically captured in FAD-free purse seine sets.

Species Overview

Mahi mahi is a highly migratory species found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. Mahi mahi istypically found in pelagic habitats, where it forms schools and is commonly found associated with floatingobjects. Mahi mahi is a top predator, feeding on small fish and squid (Froese and Pauly 2015).

Wahoo is found in tropical and subtropical waters worldwide. It is an epipelagic species of fish that is typicallyfound alone, although while small it may form small groups. Wahoo preys primarily on fish and squid (Froeseand Pauly 2015).

All of these species are managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ininternational waters of the Atlantic Ocean.

Production Statistics

Catches of mahi mahi in the Atlantic (including the Mediterranean) have increased significantly since 2003. In2003, 564 MT of mahi mahi were reported caught, followed by 2,632 MT in 2004. Catches peaked at 9,070 MTin 2010 and have since decreased to 2,607 MT in 2013 (ICCAT 2014). Catches of wahoo (Atlantic andMediterranean) have fluctuated slightly over time, with peaks (≈3,000 MT) occurring during the mid-1990s.Catches were 2,346 MT in 2013 (ICCAT 2014).

Importance to the US/North American market.

The majority of mahi mahi imported to the United States comes from Ecuador (26%), Chinese Taipei (22%),and Peru (21%). (NMFS 2015). In 2010, U.S. landings made up less than 5% of the mahi mahi available in theU.S. marketplace that year (NMFS, 2010). Import statistics for wahoo are not available from the National MarineFisheries Service.

Common and market names.

Wahoo is also known as ono, Pacific kingfish, tiger fish, ocean barracuda, Malata kingfish, queenfish, andkingfish. Mahi mahi is also known as dolphinfish.

Primary product forms

These species are sold fresh and frozen.

7

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherentvulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.

The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortalityscores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Criterion 1 Summary

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics thatmake it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)

Region / MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance

FishingMortality Score

North Atlantic Floating object purseseine

2.00: Medium 4.00: LowConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.831)

South Atlantic Floating object purseseine

2.00: Medium 4.00: LowConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.831)

WAHOO

Region / MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance

FishingMortality Score

North Atlantic Floating objectpurse seine

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.318)

South Atlantic Floating objectpurse seine

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

3.67: LowConcern

Green(3.318)

8

sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middleof food chain).High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristicsthat make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index ofthe inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, ageat first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknownand the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishingmortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to themortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but itscontribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy andthe species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted,reasonable management is in place.1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishingmortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)


NORTH ATLANTIC, FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINESOUTH ATLANTIC, FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Mahi mahireaches sexual maturity between 35 and 55 cm in length and within the first year of life. The maximum sizeand age reached is 210 cm and 4 years. It is a broadcast spawner and high-level predator (Froese and Pauly2014).

9



WAHOO




Low Concern

Mahi mahi is assessed along with 13 other “small tunas” in the Atlantic. Currently, there is not enoughinformation to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). A separate preliminary attempt at astock assessment for mahi mahi in the Caribbean and for the U.S. fishery was conducted in 2006. The resultssuggested that catch rates had been fairly stable over the 10-year study period and that the population waslikely near virgin levels in both areas (Parker et al. 2006). In addition, the International Union for Conservationof Nature (IUCN) considers mahi mahi a species of Least Concern with a stable population trend. We haveawarded a “low” concern score due to the IUCN status and the results of the preliminary assessmentindicating the population was likely near virgin levels.


Low Concern

Mahi mahi make up a small proportion of “small tuna” catches in the Atlantic Ocean. No assessment has beenconducted due to a lack of data (ICCAT 2012a). Mahi mahi are caught by a variety of gears (Collette et al.2011d). In the Atlantic, catches have increased considerably since the 1950s but have begun to decrease inrecent years (FAO 2013). Fisheries are not considered to be a major threat to this species (Collette et al.2011d) but mahi mahi is a reported bycatch species in purse seine fisheries (Menard et al. 2000). Forexample, it made up around 3% of “other fish” species in French and Spanish purse seine fisheries between2003 and 2007 (Amande et al. 2010). We have awarded a “low” concern score because it is a non-targetspecies and fisheries are not considered to be a major threat.


Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate to high vulnerability score of 46 out of 100. Wahoo reaches sexual maturityaround 99 cm in length and 1 year of age. The maximum length attained is 250 cm and it can live to around 9years of age. Wahoo is a broadcast spawner and considered a top predator (Froese and Pauly 2014). Theselife history characteristics also suggest a moderate level of vulnerability.


Moderate Concern

In the Atlantic, wahoo is assessed along with 13 other “small tuna” species. Currently, there is not enough

10


information to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). The International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the Atlantic population a population of Least Concern, indicating thatthere is no evidence to suggest populations are declining overall; although local decreases in abundance mighthave occurred (Collette et al. 2011f). An assessment conducted in the Caribbean suggested stable populationsbetween 1996 and 2006 (Collette et al. 2011f). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because astock assessment has not been completed, although it is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN and has amoderate vulnerability level.


Low Concern

Wahoo makes up a small proportion of “small tuna” catches in the Atlantic Ocean. No assessment has beenconducted due to a lack of data (ICCAT 2012a). Catches of wahoo in the Atlantic have been variable overtime. Wahoo is a reported bycatch species in purse seine fisheries (Menard et al. 2000), making up around6% of the “other fish” catch in the French and Spanish purse seine fisheries between 2003 and 2007 (Amandeet al. 2010). In the European purse seine fishery, wahoo had a per set occurrence rate of 53% between 2006and 2007 (Chassot et al. 2008). Fishing is not thought to have negatively affected wahoo populations in theAtlantic Ocean, although increased fishing on FADs has led to increased fishing and bycatch mortality rates(Collette et al. 2011f). We have awarded a “low” concern score because fishing mortality does not appear toadversely affect the population.

11

Criterion 2: Impacts on other speciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species underassessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality orinjury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened speciescatch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multipliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:


Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B.

®

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - NORTH ATLANTIC - FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Oceanic whitetip shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Turtles 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

Rainbow runner 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Blackfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.644)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

12

Wahoo 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Skipjack tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - SOUTH ATLANTIC - FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE










Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Red(2.159)



Yellow(2.644)



Yellow(2.644)

Triggerfish spp. 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.644)

Wahoo 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)


Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

WAHOO - NORTH ATLANTIC - FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE


13











Yellow(2.644)



Yellow(2.644)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)


Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

WAHOO - SOUTH ATLANTIC - FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE










14

Bycatch levels are typically larger in associated vs. unassociated (not assessed in this report) purse seinefisheries. The majority of information related to bycatch in Atlantic purse seine fisheries comes from Europeanfleets {Hall and Martin 2013}. The total bycatch rates in 2008 and 2009 were 13.4% and 19.4%, respectively,on associated fish aggregating device (FAD) sets in the French and Spanish purse seine fisheries {Amande et al.2011}. A variety of species, including billfish, sharks, and sea turtles, have been reported as caught inassociated purse seine fisheries. Species that had high occurrence rates are included in this report as “mainspecies,” as well as some species whose vulnerability status qualifies them for inclusion (based on SeafoodWatch criteria) and target tuna species that have been assessed in other Seafood Watch reports. The worstscoring species in the associated fishery is the oceanic whitetip shark, based on its low abundance and highfishing mortality rates.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Red(2.159)



Yellow(2.644)



Yellow(2.644)

Triggerfish spp. 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.644)


Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Floating object

Species Justification Source

Oceanic whitetip shark >5% (3% occurrence per set) butdepleted

Chassot et al. 2008

Silky shark 14% occurrence per set Chassot et al. 2008

Rainbow runner 53% occurrence per set Chassot et al. 2008

Triggerfish 17%–22% occurence per set Chassot et al. 2008

Turtles 2% occurrence per set Chassot et al. 2008

15

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.3 above)

OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARK





High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Oceanic whitetipsharks reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can attain a maximum length of 400 cmand live up to 22 years. Oceanic whitetip shark gives birth to live young and is a top predator (Froese andPauly 2015). These life history characteristics also suggest a “high” level of vulnerability to fishing.


Very High Concern

Stock assessments for oceanic whitetip shark throughout the Atlantic Ocean have not been conducted. It hasbeen assessed via an Ecological Risk Assessment in 2008 and 2012, at which point it ranked 13th out of 20 interms of productivity, indicating that it is more productive than other species (ICCAT 2012h). But according tothe International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), oceanic whitetip shark is assessed as CriticallyEndangered, due to radical declines in population sizes over time (Baum et al. 2006). Published estimates ofdeclines range from 70%–90% but the methods used in those studies have been questioned (Burgess et al.2007). We have assigned a “very high” concern based on the IUCN assessment.


High Concern

Information on fishing mortality rates for oceanic whitetip shark in the Atlantic Ocean is not available (Baum etal. 2006). This is due to a general lack of data, making stock assessments very difficult. An Ecological RiskAssessment was conducted in 2012, and oceanic whitetip shark ranked 6th out of 20 species in terms ofsusceptibility to longline capture (Cortes et al. 2012). We have awarded a “high concern” score becausefishing mortality rates are unknown; even though purse seine fisheries do not catch the majority of oceanicwhitetip, the contribution from the associated fishery is considered substantial due in part to the potential forghost fishing mortality (e.g., (Filmalter et al. 2013)); and effective management is not fully implemented.

16

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Although retention is prohibited, this does not ensure that post-release survival rates are high.


< 20%

Purse seine fisheries have an average discard rate of 5%, although in the Atlantic this rate is slightly less at4.1% (Kelleher 2005). Discard rates in the combined purse seine fisheries (associated and unassociated) forFrance and Spain are predominantly made up of tunas (79% and 83%, respectively), rays (89% and 90%),bony fish (47% and 26%), sharks (31% and 45%), and billfish (1% and 15%). In these purse seine fisheries,juvenile skipjack made up the majority of discarded tuna bycatch (Amande et al. 2011). Discard rates aretypically higher in purse seine sets made on FADs compared to those in unassociated sets. In the French purseseine fishery, 97% of discards were made on FAD sets, with spotted tuna and skipjack making up 50% and46%, respectively, of those discards (Chassot et al. 2008). In this fishery, tuna discard rates on FAD setsranged from 0%–4% during 2007.

17

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessManagement is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determinedas follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and allother subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy andRecovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catchesthreatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, andunreported fishing occurring.

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

North Atlantic / Floating object purse seine 3.000 1.000 Red (1.732)

South Atlantic / Floating object purse seine 3.000 1.000 Red (1.732)

18

The United Nations Law of the Sea agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highlymigratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs).RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management body on the high seas and there are currently 18RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of the world’s high seas. Countries must abide by the managementmeasures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters {Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010}. SomeRFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean (GFCM)), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (e.g., International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)). This report focuses on purse seine fisheries in internationalwaters within the Atlantic Ocean, which are managed by ICCAT (see below for member countries). For thisreport we are scoring ICCAT’s management of these fisheries.

ICCAT Contracting Parties: United States, Japan, South Africa, Ghana, Canada, France, Brazil, Morocco,Republic of Korea, Côte d’Ivoire, Angola, Russia, Gabon, Cape Verde, Uruguay, Sao Tome E Principe, Venezuela,Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, United Kingdom, Libya, China, European Union, Tunisia, Panama, Trinidad andTobago, Namibia, Barbados, Honduras, Algeria, Mexico, Vanuatu, Iceland, Turkey, Philippines, Norway,Nicaragua, Guatemala, Senegal, Belize, Syria, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Nigeria, Egypt, Albania, SierraLeone, Mauritania, and Croatia.

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must beappropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

FACTOR 3.1: MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIESRegion / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

North Atlantic /Floating object purseseine

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

South Atlantic /Floating object purseseine

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective


Moderately Effective

There is an annual catch limit of 2,000 t for blue marlin. The catch limit is divided between individual countries(ICCAT 2012j). There are no management measures in place for mahi mahi or wahoo.

There are no management measures specific to skipjack tuna, but the establishment of a time/area closure inthe surface fishery to protect juvenile bigeye tuna also provided some protection to skipjack and yellowfintuna. In addition, area closures to fish aggregating device (FAD) fishing will likely have an impact on skipjacktuna (ICCAT 2012a). There is a total allowable catch (TAC) for yellowfin tuna, and there are limits on thenumber of vessels allowed to target it (ICCAT 2016d). Albacore tuna in the North Atlantic is managed througha TAC (28,000 t for 2012 and 2013) as well as effort restrictions from 1998 that limit the fishing capacity tothe average from 1993 to 1997 (ICCAT 2012a). Bigeye tuna is managed through a TAC, which has been

19

Factor 3.1 Summary

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuildoverfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is theirlikelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood ofsuccess in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortalityfor any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and thefishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conductedregularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

reduced from 85,000 t to 65,000 t for 2016–2018 (ICCAT 2015c). Albacore tuna in the North Atlantic ismanaged through a TAC (28,000 t for 2012 and 2013) as well as effort restrictions from 1998 that limit thefishing capacity to the average from 1993 to 1997 (ICCAT 2012a). There are no management measures inplace for blackfin tuna, either domestically or internationally (NOAA 2012) (ICCAT 2012a).

ICCAT does not have formally accepted target reference points. There is a framework for harvest controlrules, but none is currently used (ISSF 2013a). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because ICCAThas implemented measures for some but not all of the target species in this report.



Within the Atlantic Ocean, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and blue marlin are overfished.

ICCAT has implemented measures to address both bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna stock concerns. Bigeye tunaare under a multi-year conservation and management program initiated in 2009, which includes capacitylimitations, vessel authorization to fish, and catch limits. However, bigeye tuna have recently been assessed asoverfished and undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2015a). ICCAT adopted new regulations during the 2015Commission meeting to address the status of bigeye tuna but these will not be put into place until 2016(ICCAT 2015b).

The multi-year conservation and management program for bigeye tuna was amended in 2011 to includeyellowfin tuna. In addition to capacity limits and vessel authorization, it also includes a total allowable catch(TAC) for yellowfin (ICCAT 2011b). Measures to recover yellowfin tuna populations appear to be succeeding,as the 2016 yellowfin assessment showed that yellowfin is recovering, overfishing has halted, and biomass isnearly at Bmsy. The 2016 yellowfin assessment also indicated that maintaining catches at current levels willresult in a 68% probability of maintaining a healthy stock through 2024 (ICCAT 2016b). At the 2016 ICCATCommission meeting, a Recommendation that included catch limits for bigeye and yellowfin tuna, fishingcapacity limitations, FAD fishing regulations, area/time closures and additional control and surveillancemeasures was adopted (ICCAT 2016d). Blue marlin has been under a rebuilding plan since 2000 (ICCAT2012a).

We have awarded a "moderately effective" score because although ICCAT is taking steps to address the statusof bigeye and yellowfin tuna populations, their populations have not yet fully recovered, and the effectivenessof the measures to recover bigeye tuna and blue marlin are not yet clear.

20

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.



Stock assessments for albacore, bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna are conducted every 4–6 years, andinclude catch and effort data from both fishery-dependent and -independent sources, along with biologicalinformation and other data sets. Blue marlin is also assessed but mahi mahi, wahoo, and other species havenot been assessed throughout the Atlantic (ICCAT 2012a). The last assessment of blackfin tuna wasattempted in 2008 and there are no plans currently to update it. Some information on catch and effort andsize data was included in the assessment (ICCAT 2012a). There is uncertainty surrounding the results of theseassessments and there are issues with reporting catch data for some species. We have therefore awarded a“moderately effective” score.



No specific management recommendations have recently been made for skipjack tuna, other than to keepcatches below MSY (ICCAT 2014). It has been suggested that maintaining yellowfin tuna catches at currentlevels (110,000 t) should lead to the biomass remaining healthy through 2024 (ICCAT 2016). The TAC was setat this level starting in 2012 (ICCAT 2012a). It was also advised that measures to reduce FAD-related andother fishing mortality on small yellowfin tuna should be implemented if the Commission intends to increasethe long term yield of yellowfin tuna, which was addressed at the 2016 Commission meeting (ICCAT 2016b)(ICCAT 2016d). The Commission has followed advice and set the TAC for albacore tuna in the North Atlantic at28,000 t for 2012 and 2013. The current assessment indicates that if catches remain at the current TAC level,the population will rebuild (53% probability) by 2019, which abides by the 2011 recovery plan. If catches werelowered, recovery would occur more quickly. The current management measure for North Atlantic albacoretuna allows for potential overages by allowing excess catch (not included in the total TAC) (ICCAT 2013a).Maintaining the current TAC (24,000 t) for South Atlantic albacore tuna will be sustainable into the future(ICCAT 2016). The bigeye tuna TAC should be reduced from the current level of 85,000 t, to allow thepopulation to rebuild (ICCAT 2015d). The Commission lowered the bigeye tuna TAC to 65,000 t from 2016 to2018, which will allow a 49% probability of rebuilding by 2028 (ICCAT 2015c). The billfish working groupadvised that, at a minimum, current management measures for blue marlin should be continued. In addition,fishery information needs to be improved, including information on discards and survival, and mortality shouldbe reduced (ICCAT 2012a). No scientific advice for blackfin tuna has been provided and there is currently noset TAC (ICCAT 2012a). Scientific advice for mahi mahi and wahoo is also lacking (ICCAT 2014). We haveawarded a “moderately effective” score because advice is sometimes but not always followed.

21

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levelsor a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measuresenacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent and includes stakeholder input.



In terms of compliance among member countries to management measures, ICCAT has one of the bestpractices of reviewing, assessing, and addressing compliance issues (Koehler 2013). Countries are required toprovide information on catch, catch at size, location, and month of capture for other tuna species (ICCAT2012a), and vessel monitoring systems (VMS) are required on all vessels larger than 20 m in length (ICCAT2003). A total allowable catch (TAC) for yellowfin tuna was implemented in 2012 and catches have remainedbelow this level (ICCAT 2016b). There is the ability to subtract overages from subsequent years if catches ofyellowfin tuna exceed TAC levels (ICCAT 2012a). Catches of South Atlantic albacore tuna have been below therecommended TAC since 2004, except for slight overages during 2006 and 2011 (ICCAT 2016). Bigeye catcheshave been below TAC levels from 2005 to 2011; if they ever exceed the TAC, there are measures in place toadjust the following years’ country quotas (ICCAT 2012a). Overages or underages of the blue marlin catchlimit are added or subtracted from subsequent years (ICCAT 2014) (ICCAT 2012j). There is no TAC forskipjack tuna, mahi mahi, or wahoo (ICCAT 2012a). We have awarded a “moderately effective” score becauseICCAT has a good record of addressing compliance issues and TACs are not generally exceeded.



Management measures have been able to sustain or allow some species to recover (such as albacore tuna). Yellowfin tuna are still slightly overfished, but the most recent assessment indicates that they are recoveringunder current management (ICCAT 2016). Bigeye tuna has become overfished under current managementmeasures, although updated measures have been adopted and will be put into place during 2016 (ICCAT2015c) (ICCAT 2015d). We have awarded a “moderately effective” score because recovery plans have notalways been successful for species included in this report.


Highly Effective

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has attempted to includestakeholder input in the management and conservation of some species (e.g., Atlantic bluefin) (ICCAT 2008b).Observers are allowed at scientific and commission meetings but may not vote on individual management

22

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy

SCORING GUIDELINES

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring,Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderatelyeffective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record ofFollowing Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these rating are the same as in 3.1.

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy butsome other factors rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened speciesare known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the fishery

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimizethe impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

measures. We have awarded a “highly effective” score to account for the inclusion of stakeholder input andtransparency of management process through meeting reports and the ability of non-delegates to attend andparticipate in meetings.

FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce

North Atlantic / Floating objectpurse seine

No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

South Atlantic / Floating objectpurse seine

No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective


Ineffective

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has implemented a fewmanagement measures specific to bycatch in the purse seine fishery. Member countries are required to collectinformation on bycatch and discards and to report that information to the Secretariat. Countries are alsoencouraged to provide identification guides for sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals to vesselsfishing in the Convention area (ICCAT 2011g). Several species of sharks (silky, oceanic whitetip, andhammerhead) are prohibited from being retained if incidentally captured (ICCAT 2011i) (ICCAT 2010e) (ICCAT2010f). In addition, purse seine vessels must avoid encircling sea turtles, release those incidentally caught,

23

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch tomeasure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must beconducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

and report any interactions, and safe handling techniques must be used (ICCAT 2013c) (ICCAT 2010g).Management measures for other bycatch species, such as dolphinfish, wahoo, rainbow runner, and triggerfish,are not in place. Individual countries are required to report on the implementation and compliance withseveral of these measures, including for sea turtles and sharks (ICCAT 2010g) (ICCAT 2012i). There are nobycatch catch limits in place, and best practices for bycatch mitigation are not being employed (Gilman 2011).In addition, it is unknown if current measures have been sufficient in maintaining the health of bycatch speciespopulations. The potential for population-level impacts of bycatch using associated purse seine isconsiderable, due to the potential for the FADs to entangle sharks and other species of concern as well asbycatch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna. The management in place to reduce bycatch is consideredinsufficient given these potential impacts of the fishery. We have therefore awarded an “ineffective” score.


Ineffective

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) requires member countries tohave observer programs in place that provide a minimum of 5% observer coverage, although theimplementation success of this measure by all countries is unknown. Observers record information on effort,total target and bycatch catches, size, and disposition, and they can collect biological samples (ICCAT 2010i).In addition, vessels 20 m in length or more must carry an observer while targeting bigeye or yellowfin tuna inthe time/area closure designated to protect juvenile fish around Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) (ICCAT2013c). We have awarded an “ineffective” score because observer programs are in place but the requiredcoverage rate is low.



See harvest strategy section 3.1.4

24



See harvest strategy section 3.1.5

25

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gearimpacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined asfollows:


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Purse seine fisheries tend to have minimal contact with the bottom habitat, although FADs can be anchored tothe bottom. But they do incidentally capture some ecologically important species, and the impact of this on theecosystem is unknown. In addition, the impact of this fishery on the ecosystem is not factored into currentmanagement efforts.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of GearImpacts EBFM Score

North Atlantic / Floating objectpurse seine

4.00: Very LowConcern

0.00: Not Applicable 1.00: Very HighConcern

Red(2.000)

South Atlantic / Floating objectpurse seine

4.00: Very LowConcern

0.00: Not Applicable 1.00: Very HighConcern

Red(2.000)

26

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) withgear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modificationsshown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place tolimit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitatsnot protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensurefishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protectedwith marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators)4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in placeto protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem.Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fishaggregating devices (FADs) are used.3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in theecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of thesespecies, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible andmanagement is not place to mitigate these impacts2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and noefforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery ishaving serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades orother detrimental impacts to the food web.

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts


Very Low Concern

Although purse seine fishing typically does not result in the nets coming in contact with the bottom, anchoredFADs could result in contact with the bottom (Beverly et al. 2012) (Seafood Watch 2013).


Not Applicable

Although purse seines can come into contact with bottom habitats, their impact is minimal and therefore nomitigation measures are needed.

27


Very High Concern

Purse seine fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean catch several ecologically important groups including other tunasand sharks. In particular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a critical role inhow these ecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss ofthese predators can cause many changes (such as to prey abundances), which can lead to a cascade of othereffects (Myers et al. 2007) (Duffy 2003) (Ferretti et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes(Heithaus et al. 2007).

The use of FADs can also affect the surrounding ecosystems. Smaller tuna, specifically bigeye and yellowfin,are often associated with FADs and this could lead to growth and recruitment overfishing (Freon and Dagorn2000). In addition, behavioral changes in tunas could be associated with the introduction of FADs into theAtlantic region. These include increases in the biomass of tunas under FADs, reduced free-school abundance,changes in school movement patterns and structure, and differences between the age and size of free andFAD-associated schools (Fonteneau 1991) (Menard et al. 2000a) (Menard et al. 2000b) (Josse et al. 1999)(Josse et al. 2000). The negative long-term impacts of FAD fishing are difficult to evaluate due to insufficientqualitative data (Fonteneau et al. 2000), so additional research should be undertaken to determine thepotential effects of FADs on the ecosystem, including monitoring the number of FADs being used (Dagorn et al.2012).

ICCAT has assessed several species of sharks and conducted ecological risk assessments for other bycatchspecies. Although ecosystem impacts are not currently included in management plans, ICCAT has adoptedmanagement measures to protect bycatch species and conducts ecological risk assessments. In addition,ICCAT has investigated prohibiting the use of FADs and currently requires the collection of some informationon FAD fishing (deployment of FADs, visiting FADs, and loss of FADs) and requires the use of FAD logbooks(Morgan 2011) (ICCAT 2013c). In addition, there is a Sub-Committee on Ecosystems within ICCAT that isinvestigating the role of Ecosystem-Based Management within ICCAT fisheries (ICCAT 2013b).

We have awarded a “very high” concern score because there is a potential for negative ecological impactsfrom FADs and management is not designed to avoid these impacts.

28

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program, or its seafoodrecommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Alexia Morgan, as wellas one anonymous reviewer for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

®

®

29

ReferencesAbreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Alessandro, L. and Antonello, S. 2010. An overview of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) bycatch andtechnical mitigation measures in the Mediterranean Sea. Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 20:141-161

Alvarez de Quevedo, I., Feliz, M.S. and Cardona, L. 2013. Mortality rates in by-caught loggerhead turtle Carettacaretta in the Mediterranean Sea and implications for the Atlantic populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series489:225-234

Alvarez de Quevedo, I., Cardona, L., De Haro, A., Pubill, E. and Aguilar, A. 2010. Sources of bycatch ofloggerhead sea turtles in the western Mediterranean other than drifting longlines. ICES Journal of MarineScience 67:677-685.

Amande, M.J., Ariz, J., Chassot, E., de Molina, A.D., Gaerner, D., Murua, H., Pianet, R., Ruiz, J. and Chavance, P.2010. Bycatch of the European purse seine tuna fishery in the Atlantic Ocean from 2003-2007 period. AquaticLiving Resources 23:353-362.

Baum, J.K. and Myers, R.A. 2004. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico.Ecology Letters 7:135-145.

Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. and Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version2013.1.

Beverly, S., Griffiths, D. and Lee, R. 2012. Anchored fish aggregating devices for artisanal fisheries in South andSoutheast Asia: benefits and risks. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Regional Officefor Asia and the Pacific, Bankkok.

BirdLife International. 2012a. Thalassarche melanophrys. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2.

BirdLife International. 2012d. Procellaria aequinoctialis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2.

BirdLife International 2012. Thalassarche chlororhynchos. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M.,Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Broderick, A.C., Glen, F., Godley, B.J., and Hays, G.C. 2002. Estimating the number of green and loggerheadturtles nesting annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx 36:227-235

Burgess, G. H., L. R. Beerkircher, G. M. Cailliet, J. K. Carlson, E. Cortés, K. J. Goldman, R. D. Grubbs, J. A.Musick, M. K. Musyl, and C. A. Simpfendorfer. 2005. Is the collapse of shark populations in the NorthwestAtlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries 30(10):19-26

Casale, P. 2008. Incidental catch of marine turtles in the Mediterranean Sea:captures, mortality, priorities. WWF

30

Italy, Rome.

Chassot, E., Amande, M.J., Chavance, P. Pianet, R. and Dedo, R.G. 2008. A preliminary attempt to estimate tunadiscards and bycatch in the French purse seine fishery of the eastern Atlantic Ocean. SCRS/2008/117.

Cheung, W.W.L., T.J. Pitcher and D. Pauly, 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinctionvulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124:97-111.

Collette, B., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Carpenter, K.E., Dooley, J., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L.,Fritzsche, R., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Nelson, J.,Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Teixeira Lessa, R.P. & Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E. 2011a. Thunnus atlanticus. In:IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1

Collette, B., Amorim, A., Boustany, A., Carpenter, K., Dooley, J., Fox, W., Fredou, F., Fritzsche, R., Graves, J.,Hazin, F., Herdson, D., Juan Jorda, M.J., Leite, N., Lessa, R., Matsuura, K., Minte-Vera, C., Nelson, J., Nelson, R.,Oxenford, H. & Travassos, P. 2011b. Sarda sarda. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2013.1.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., JuanJorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Salas, E., Schaefer,K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011c. Auxisrochei. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., JuanJorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Salas, E., Schaefer,K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011d. Auxisthazard. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou,F.L., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H.,Teixeira Lessa, R.P. & Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E. 2011e. Euthynnus alletteratus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2013.1

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H.,Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H.,Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires FerreiraTravassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011f. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2013.1

Collette, B., A. Acero, A.F. Amorim, A. Boustany, C. Canales Ramirez, G. Cardenas, ... E. Yanez. 2011g. Makairanigricans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Cortés, E., Brown, C. and Beerkircher, L.R. 2007. Relative abundance and average size trends of pelagic sharksin the northwest Atlantic ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Gulf and Caribbean Research19(2): 37-52.

Cullis-Suzuki, S. and Pauly, D. 2010. Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries managementorganizations. Marine Policy 34:1036-1042

31

Dagorn, L., K.N. Holland, V. Restrepo and G. Moreno. 2012. Is it good or bad to fish with FADs? What are thereal impacts of the use of drifting FADs on pelagic marine ecosystem? Fish and Fisheries DOI:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00478.x.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2009. Canadian Atlantic swordfish and other tunas 2004-2006. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010. Monitoring and enforcement. Fisheries and OceansCanada.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Assessment of leatherback turtle (Dermochelyscoriacea) fishery and non-fishery interactions in the Atlantic Canadian waters. Canadian Science AdvisorySecretariat Science Advisory Report 2012/041.

Duffy, J.E. 2003. Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning. Ecology Letters 6:680-687.

Ferretti, F., B. Worm, G.L. Britten, M.R. Heithaus, H.K. and Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences ofshark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13: 1055– 1071.

Filmalter, J.D., Capello, M., Denubourg, J.L., Cowley, P.D. and Dagorn, L. 2013. Looking behind the curtain:quantifying massive shark mortality in fish aggregating devices. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 11:391-296.

Fonteneau, A. 1991. Seamounts and tuna in the tropical eastern Atlantic. Aquatic and Living Resources 4:13-25.

Fonteneau, A., Ariz, J., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. and Pallares, P. 2000a. Observed changes in the speciescomposition of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 to 1999, in relation with the fish aggregatingdevice fishery. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:253-257.

Foster, D.G., Epperly, S.P., Shah, A.K. and Watson, J.W. 2012. Evaluation of hook and bait type on the catch ratesin the western north Atlantic Ocean pelagic longline fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:529-545.

Fréon, P. and Dagorn, L. 2000. Review of fish associative behavior: Toward a generalization of the meeting pointhypothesis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:183-207.

Gabriel, W.L., and P.M. Mace. 1999. A review of the biological reference points in the context of the precautionary approach. Proceedings, 5th NMFS NSAW. 1999. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-4.

Gilman, E. 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. MarinePolicy 35:590-609.

Gilman, E., Pasfield, K. and Nakamura, K. 2013. Performance of regional fisheries management organizations:ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish and Fisheries DOI:10.1111/faf.12021

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang,J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Delphinus delphis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang,J.Y. , Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012. Tursiops truncatus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

32

Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bejder, L2007. State-dependent risk taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in amarine ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:837-844.

Huang, H. 2009. Report of the Taiwanese observer program for large-scale tuna longline fisheries in the AtlanticOcean in 2007. ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific Papers 65:2399-2408.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2003. Recommendation by ICCATrelating to Mediterranean swordfish. Recommendation 03-04.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2008b. Report of the meeting ofmanagers and stakeholders in Atlantic bluefin tuna. MSAB Tokyo 2008.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2009a. Report of the 2009 ICCATalbacore stock assessment session. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers, ICCAT 65:1113-1253

International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2009b. Report of the 2008 ICCAT yellowfinand skipjack stock assessments meeting. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers ICCAT 64:669-927.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2009c. Report of the 2009 sailfish stockassessment. Reciefe, Brazil, 1-5 June 2009.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2009d. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe conservation of thresher sharks caught in association with fisheries in the ICCAT convention area.Recommendation 09-07.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010a. Report of the 2010 ICCATbigeye tuna stock assessment session. Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain 5-9 July 2010.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2010b. Report of the 2010 ICCATMediterranean swordfish stock assessment meeting. Madrid, Spain, June 28-July 2, 2010.

International Commission for the Conservation of Tuna (ICCAT). 2010c. Recommendation by ICCAT on thesouthern albacore catch limits for 2012 and 2013. Recommendation 11-05.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010d. Recommendation by ICCAT onhammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT.Recommendation 10-08.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010e. Recommendation by ICCAT onhammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT.Recommendation 10-08.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010f. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe conservation of oceanic whitetip shark caught in association with fisheries in the ICCAT convention area.Recommendation 10-07.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010g. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe by-catch of sea turtles in ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 10-09.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010h. Recommendation by ICCAT on

33

Atlantic shortfin mako sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 10-06.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010i. Recommendation by ICCAT toestablish minimum standards for fishing vessel scientific observer programs. Recommendation 10-10.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2011a. Report of the 2011 ICCATsouth Atlantic and Mediterranean albacore stock assessment sessions. Madrid, Spain, 25-29 July 2011.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas {ICCAT}. 2011b. Recommendation formanagement measures for Mediterranean swordfish in the framework of ICCAT. Recommendation 11-03.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011c. Recommendation by ICCAT toamend the recommendation by ICCAT on a multi-year conservation and management program for bigeye tunaand yellowfin tuna. Recommendation 11-01.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011d. Report of the 2011 ICCATyellowfin tuna stock assessment session. San Sebastian, Spain, 5-12 September 2011.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011e. Supplemental recommendationby ICCAT concerning the north Atlantic albacore rebuilding program. Recommendation 11-04

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011f. Report of the 2011 blue marlinstock assessment and white marlin data preparatory meeting. Madrid, Spain, 25-29 April 2011.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011g. Recommendation by ICCAT oninformation collection and harmonization of data on bycatch and discards in ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation11-10.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011h. Supplemental recommendationby ICCAT on reducing incidental bycatch of seabirds in ICCAT longline fisheries. Recommendation 11-02.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011j. Recommendation by ICCATTfurther amending recommendation 09-10 establishing a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal,unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the ICCAT convention area. Recommendation 11-18.

ICCAT. 2011k. Alternative virtual population analyses of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), 1970-2010. TropicalTunas Species Group. SCRS/2011/205.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012a. Report of the standingcommittee on research and statistics (SCRS). PLE-104/2012, Madrid, Spain, 1-5 October 2012.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012b. Report of the 2012 Atlanticbluefin tuna stock assessment session.. Doc. No. SCI-033/2012.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012c. Recommendation by ICCATamending the recommendation by ICCAT to establish a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in theeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. Recommendation 12-03.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012d. Supplemental recommendationby ICCAT concerning the western Atlantic bluefin tuna rebuilding program. Recommendation 12-02.

34

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012e. Recommendation by ICCAT forthe conservation of north Atlantic swordfish. Recommendation 11-02.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012f. Recommendation by ICCAT onsouth Atlantic swordfish catch limits. Recommendation 12-01

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012g. 2012 shortfin mako stockassessment and ecological risk assessment meeting. Olhado, Portugal, 11-18 June, 2012.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012h. Expanded ecological riskassessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. SCRS/2012/167.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012i. Recommendation by ICCAT oncompliance with existing measures on shark conservation and management. Recommendation 12-05.

ICCAT. 2012j. Recommendation by ICCAT to further strengthen the plan to rebuild blue marlin and white marlinstocks. Conservation and Management Measure 12-04.

ICCAT. 2013b. Summary of the report of the inter-sessional meeting of the Sub-Committee on Ecosystems.ICCAT Report 2012-13(II).

ICCAT. 2013a. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, Spain, September30-October 4, 2013.

ICCAT. 2013c. Recommendations and resolutions adopted at the 23rd regular meeting of the commission. ICCATCircular #6921.

ICCAT. 2014. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, Spain, 29 September to 3 October, 2014.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2015. Report of the 2015 ICCAT bigeyetuna stock assessment session. Madrid, Spain, July 13-17, 2015.

ICCAT. 2015c. 2015 Annual ICCAT Meeting press release. International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic tunas.

ICCAT. 2015d. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, Spain, 28September to 2 October, 2015.

ICCAT. 2016b. Report of the 2016 ICCAT yellowfin tuna stock assessment meeting. San Sebastian, Spain, June27th to July 1 2016.

ICCAT. 2016d. 2016 Annual ICCAT meeting press release. International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic Tunas.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2008. Report of the 2008 shark stockassessments meeting. Madrid, Spain, 1-5 September, 2008.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011i. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe conservation of silky sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 11-08.

35

Inoue, Y., Yokawa, K., Minami, H., Ochi, D., Sato, N. and Katsumata, N. 2012. Distribution of seabird bycatchusing data collected by Japanese observers in 1997-2009 in the ICCAT area. Collective Volume of ScientificPapers ICCAT 68:1738-1753.

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013a. ISSF stock assessment workshop: control rulesand reference points for tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report 2013-03. International Seafood SustainabilityFoundation, Washington, DC. 34 p.

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013b. ISSF stock status ratings 2013 status of theworld fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2013-4, April 2013

Josse, E., Bertrand, A. and Dagorn, L. 1999. An acoustic approach to study tuna aggregated around fishaggregating devices in French Polynesia: methods and validation. Aquatic and Living Resources 12:303-313.

Josse, E., Dagorn, L. and Bertrand, A. 2000. Typology and behavior of tuna aggregations around fishaggregating devices from acoustic surveys in French Polynesia. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:183-192.

Klaer, N.L. 2012. Estimates of total seabird bycatch by Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries from 2003-2006. MarineFisheries Review 74:14-20

Koehler, H.R., 2013. Promoting compliance in tuna RFMO's: a comprehensive baseline survey of the currentmechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obligations and measures. ISSFTechnical Report 2013-02.

Levesque, J. 2010. Evolving fisheries: today's bycatch is tomorrow's target catch - escolar (Lepidocybiumflavobrunneum) catch in the US pelagic longline fishery. The Open Fish Science Journal 3:30-42.

Lewison, R.I., Freeman, S.A. and Crowder, L.B. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species:the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7:221-231

Maison, K.A., Kinan Kelly, I. and K.P. Frutchey. 2010. Green Turtle Nesting Sites and Sea Turtle Legislationthroughout Oceania. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-110, 52 pp.

Mejuto, J., Garcia-Cortes, B., Ramos-Cartelle, A. and de la Sema, J.M. 2008. Scientific estimations of bycatchlanded by the Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish (Xiphas gladius) in the Atlantic Ocean withspecial reference to the years 2005 and 2006. International Commission for the Conservation of TunasSCRS/2008/045.

Menard, F., Fonteneau, A., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. Stequert, B. and Marchal, E. 2000. Exploitation of smalltunas by a purse-seine fishery with fish aggregating devices and their feeding ecology in an eastern tropicalAtlantic ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:525-520.

Menard, F., Fonteneau, A., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V., Stequert, B. and Marchal, E. 2000b. Exploitation of smalltunas by a purse-seine fishery with fish aggregating devices and their feeding ecology in an eastern tropicalAtlantic ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:525-530,

Menard, F., Stequert, B., Rubin, A., Herrera, M. and Marchal, E. 2000a. Food consumption of tuna in theequatorial Atlantic Ocean: FAD associated versus unassociated schools. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:233-240.

Milessi, A.C. and Defeo, O. Long-term impact of incidental catches by tuna longlines: the black escolar

36

(Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) of the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries Research 58:203-213

Moody Marine International (MMI). 2011. North Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Canadian pelagic longlinefishery: Vol. 1 final report and determination. Contract Number:09-01 Nova Scotia swordfish.

Morgan, L.E. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2003, Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods inUS waters. Pew Science Series. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss ofapex predatory sharks from a coastal. Science 315:1846-1850.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009b. An assessment of loggerhead sea turtles to estimate impactsof mortality reductions on population dynamics. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Contribution PRD-08/09-14

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Status of stocks 2012, annual report to congress on the statusof US fisheries. NOAA Fisheries.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. HMS Fishery Compliance Guide. Atlantic Highly MigratorySpecies, National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Us Foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology.

NMFS. 2015. Annual trade data by product, country/associated. National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. 2012 Stock Assessment and Fishery EvaluationReport for Atlantic highly migratory species. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. 220 pg.

Parker, C., Kleisner, K.M. and Nowlis, J.S. 2006. Preliminary assessment of the western central Atlanticdolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) stock: a Caribbean regional fisheries mechanism project. SustainableFisheries Division Contribution NO. SFD-2--6-041

Parkes, G., Mitchell, R., Trumble, R.J. 2013. MSC final report for US north Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline andhandgear buoy fishery. MRAG Americas, Inc.

Paul, S.D., Hanke, A., Smith, S.C., and Neilson, J.D. 2010. An examination of loggerhead sea turtle (Carettacaretta) encounters in the Canadian swordfish and tuna longline fishery, 2002-2008. Canadian Science AdvisorySecretariat Research Document 2010/088

Paxton, J.R. 2010. Alepisaurus ferox. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Piraino, S., Fanelli, G., Boero, F. 2002. Variability of species roles in marine communities: change of paradigmsfor conservation priorities. Marine Biology 140:1067-1074.

Schindler, D.E., Essington, T.E., Kitchell, J.F., Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and tunas: fisheries impactson predators with contrasting life histories. Ecological Applications 12:735-748.

Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay AquariumSeafood Watch Version January 18, 2013. 82 p.

37

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) (2006) Stock assessment report of SEDAR 9 Gulf of Mexicogray triggerfish. SEDAR 9 Assessment Report 1, Charleston, SC.

Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). 2013. Pelagic observer program catch and disposition data 2007-2009.

Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.) 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. and Walker, P.A. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras(chondrichthuyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-494.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2012. Grampus griseus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2013.1

Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the AtlanticOcean. NOAA Technical memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555.

Tudela, S. 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats of fishinggear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. Report for FAO Fisheries Department (EP/INT/759/GEF).Rome, Italy.

Waring, G.T., Josephson, e., Maze-Foley, K. and Rosel, P.E . 2013. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marinemammal stock assessments - 2-12. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Yeh, Y.M., Huan, H.W., Dietrich, K.S. and Melvin, E. 2012. Estimates of seabird incidental catch by pelagiclongline fisheries in the south Atlantic Ocean. Animal Conservation 16:141-152.

38

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesBIGEYE TUNA





Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, bigeyetuna’s life history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reachessexual maturity around 100–125 cm, reaches a maximum size of 200 cm, and lives around 11 years (Davies etal. 2011) (Froese et al. 2013). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based onthese life history characteristics, we have awarded a “medium” score.


High Concern

Bigeye tuna in the Atlantic were last assessed in 2015. Several models were used in this assessment. TheStock Synthesis model indicates that the biomass has decreased over time and fell below levels necessary toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (B ) in 2010. The Age Structured Production Model indicated thatthe ratio of the biomass in 2014 to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B /B ) rangedbetween 0.554 and 1.225. The Virtual Population Analysis also indicated that the population is overfished(ICCAT 2015a). The current status is assessed to be overfished based on the most plausible model runs(0.48–1.20). We have awarded a “high” concern score because there is evidence that the population of bigeyetuna in the Atlantic is overfished.

MSY

2014 MSY


High Concern

According to the Age Structured Production model used in the 2015 assessment, the ratio of fishing mortalityin 2014 to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F /F ) ranged from 0.576 to 1.436,indicating that overfishing may be occurring.

According to the stock synthesis model, the F /F ratio appears to have decreased in recent years tobelow 1, indicating that overfishing is not occurring. The Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) base modelindicated that overfishing is not occurring, although some model runs indicated that overfishing is occurring(the VPA results were sensitive to the values used for recruitment) (ICCAT 2015a). Based on the mostplausible model runs (0.62–1.85), there is an indication that overfishing is occurring (ICCAT 2015a). Becausesome models indicate that overfishing is occurring, we have awarded a “high” concern score.

2014 MSY

2014 MSY

39

SKIPJACK TUNA





< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Skipjack’s lifehistory characteristics support this score. Sexual maturity is reached around 45 cm or 2 years of age, andskipjack can reach a maximum size of 110 cm and age of 12 years. It is a broadcast spawner and has a hightrophic level (Froese and Pauly 2013).


Low Concern

Stock assessments for skipjack tuna are difficult to conduct due to its biology and the fishery characteristics. Inthe Atlantic Ocean, eastern and western stocks of skipjack tuna are assessed. According to the most recentassessment conducted in 2014, the biomass in the eastern region is likely above target levels (B , biomassneeded to produce the maximum sustainable yield) and the biomass in the western region is “probably” 30%above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B /B = 1.3). Both populations are notoverfished (ICCAT 2014). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score due to the highlevel of uncertainty associated with this assessment.

MSY

2013 MSY


Low Concern

Stock assessments for skipjack tuna are difficult to conduct due to its life history and the fisherycharacteristics. The last assessment in the Atlantic was conducted in 2014 for the eastern and western

40



YELLOWFIN TUNA



populations. The assessment determined that the fishing mortality rate (F ) in the eastern Atlantic waslikely below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F ), and in the western Atlanticwas likely 30% below F (F /F = 0.70) (ICCAT 2014). We have awarded a “low” concern and not verylow concern score because the populations appear to be sustainably fished but there is some uncertaintysurrounding the results.

2013

MSY

MSY 2013 MSY


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin tunareaches sexual maturity around 100 cm in size and 2–5 years in age. A maximum length of 140–150 cm insize can be attained and it can live 8-9 years. It is a broadcast spawner and high-level predator in theecosystem (Froese and Pauly 2014) (ICCAT 2014). These life history characteristics also support a moderatelevel of vulnerability.


High Concern

Yellowfin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean was last assessed in 2016. The population is currently estimated to beabout 5% below Convention objectives (B /B = 0.95 (0.71–1.36)), with a 45.5% chance that thepopulation is not overfished or undergoing overfishing. Their status has improved since the 2011 assessment,when it was estimated at 85% of B with a 26% chance the population is not overfished or undergoingoverfishing. However, the stock is still considered to be overfished (ICCAT 2016b). This rates as “high” concernbecause the population is classified as overfished.

2014 MSY

MSY

41



RAINBOW RUNNER




Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate is estimated to be 23% below F (F /F = 0.77 (0.53–1.05)) andthe maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is estimated at 126,304 t (ICCAT 2016b). This suggests that fishingmortality rates are sustainable and overfishing is not occurring. The assessment suggested only a 13.3%chance the stock is both overfished and undergoing overfishing and suggested that the continuation of currentcatch levels into the future will be sustainable through 2014. We have therefore awarded a low concern score.

MSY current MSY


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 41 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Rainbow runnerreaches a maximum size of 180 cm. It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015).


Moderate Concern

No assessments have been conducted in the Atlantic Ocean, so its status is unknown. We have awarded a“moderate” concern score.

42


SILKY SHARK




Moderate Concern

Although information on fishing mortality rates is not available for this species in the Atlantic, it is reported tobe one of the most common bycatch species in the European purse seine fishery, having a 53% occurrencerate per set (Chassot et al. 2008). Rainbow runner is also reported as common bycatch in other FAD purseseine fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic (Menard et al. 2000) and made up 18% of the total “other bony fish”catch between 2003 and 2005 in the French and Spanish purse seine fisheries (Amande et al. 2010). We haveawarded a “moderate” concern score due to its unknown status and the high incidental capture rates in thisfishery.


< 20%



High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Silky shark reachessexual maturity between 200 and 260 cm in size and 7–12 years of age. Silky shark gives birth to live young. Itreaches a maximum size of 350 cm and lives at least 25 years (Froese and Pauly 2015). These life historycharacteristics also suggest a high vulnerability to fishing.


High Concern

A stock wide population assessment of silky shark in the Atlantic Ocean has not been conducted. TheInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed silky shark as Vulnerable in the Northwest

43




ALBACORE TUNA


Atlantic and Western Central Atlantic Ocean, and Near Threatened in the Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Someanalyses of catch rate series in the Northwest and Central Atlantic Ocean have indicated large declines inpopulation size (Baum et al. 2003) (Cortes et al. 2007). There are significant issues with species identificationand an overall lack of reporting for this species (Bonfil et al. 2009). We have awarded a “high” concern scorebased on the IUCN status.


High Concern

Silky shark is caught as bycatch in several fisheries in the Atlantic, particularly purse seine fisheries (Bonfil etal. 2009). It has been reported as one of the most common bycatch species in European purse seine fisherieson FADs (Menard et al. 2000) and made up 72% of all shark species observed caught between 2003 and 2007in the Spanish and French fisheries (Amande et al. 2010). The incidental mortality from fisheries is thought tobe a contributing factor to silky shark population declines (Bonfil et al. 2009). But in the Atlantic, silky shark isprohibited from being retained (ICCAT 2011i), so we have awarded a “high” concern and not critical concernscore.


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life historycharacteristics of albacore suggest only a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reachessexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reaches a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011). It isa broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteristics,we have awarded a “medium” score.

44



Rationale:

Life history paramater Value Score

Age at maturity 5-10 years 2Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

NORTH ATLANTIC, FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE

High Concern

The population of albacore tuna in the North Atlantic has been below the level needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield (B ) since the mid-1980s but has improved since the lowest levels in the late1990s. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the status of albacore tuna in the North Atlantic, asevidenced by the wide array of model results. The ratio of the current spawning stock biomass to that at themaximum sustainable yield (SSB /SSB ) is estimated to be 0.94 (0.74–1.14). There is a 0.2%probability that the population is overfished and undergoing overfishing, a 27.4% probability that thepopulation is neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing, and a 72.4% probability that the population iseither overfished or overfishing is occurring, but not both (ICCAT 20013). So we have awarded a “high”concern score.

MSY

current MSY

SOUTH ATLANTIC, FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE

Low Concern

The 2016 assessment of albacore tuna in the South Atlantic indicated that the population status has improvedsince the last assessment (2013). The majority of model runs showed that the population was not overfished,with the ratio of the current biomass to that which would produce the maximum sustainable yield (B/B )ranging from 0.508 to 1.972 (ICCAT 2016). There is a high probability that the population is healthy, so wehave awarded a “low” concern score.

MSY

NORTH ATLANTIC, FLOATING OBJECT PURSE SEINE

Low Concern

The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of albacore tuna in the North Atlantic is estimated to be 31,680 t.Historically, fishing mortality rates were above the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield(F ) from the 1960s to the mid-2000s. Currently, F /F = 0.72 (0.55–0.89) and the population is nolonger undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2013a). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concernscore to account for uncertainty in this assessment.

MSY 2012 MSY


Very Low Concern

According to the most recent assessment (2016), fishing mortality rates for South Atlantic albacore tuna have

45


BLUE MARLIN



decreased since the previous (2013) assessment. The current ratios of fishing mortality rates to those thatproduce the maximum sustainable yield (F/F ) are estimated to range from 0.316 to 0.851. There is a highprobability that the population is no longer undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2016). We have awarded a “verylow” concern score.

MSY


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 52 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blue marlinreaches sexual maturity between 50 and 80 cm in length and can reach 500 cm in size. It is a broadcastspawner and top predator in the ecosystem (Froese and Pauly 2014). These life history characteristicssuggest a moderate vulnerability to fishing according to the Seafood Watch productivity and susceptibility table(1.83).

Rationale:

Life history characteristic Paramater Score

Age at maturity <5 years 3Average size at maturity >200 cm 1Average maximum size >300 cm 1Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1


46



TURTLES


High Concern

Blue marlin in the Atlantic was last assessed in 2011. According to the assessment, the current biomass iswell below the biomass that produces the maximum sustainable yield (B ). There was conflictinginformation on the biomass trend, with some indices showing biomass declines had stopped, while othersindicated that the declines were continuing. The working group therefore suggested a possible stabilizingtrend in abundance. Because of a lack of data, it was estimated that at least 4 or 5 years of additional datawere needed to conduct another assessment (ICCAT 2011f). Blue marlin is also listed as Vulnerable by theInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Collette et al. 2011g). We have awarded a “high”concern score because of the low abundance size and IUCN status.

MSY


High Concern

Catches of blue marlin in purse seine fisheries operating around moored FADs are known to be high butunderreported (Chassot et al. 2008) (Menard et al. 2000) (Amande et al. 2010). The maximum sustainableyield (MSY) is estimated to be around 2,000 t (1,000 t to 2,400 t), and current fishing mortality rates arehigher than F but possibly smaller than F , which is the level of fishing mortality that would keepthe biomass constant between years (ICCAT 2011f). It is illegal to sell blue marlin in the United States. Wehave therefore awarded a “high” concern score due to the high fishing mortality rates.

MSY replacement


< 20%



High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). This classification is supported by seaturtle life history characteristics, which include a long life, late age at maturity, and low number of young.

47




Very High Concern

Several species of sea turtles, green, Kemp’s ridley, hawksbill, leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley, havebeen reported as incidentally captured in purse seine fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Several ofthese species are listed as Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), havedecreasing population sizes, and are listed on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) or on the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Appendix I. We have therefore awarded a “very high”concern score.

Rationale:

Green: The IUCN has classified green sea turtle as Endangered with a decreasing population trend. Green seaturtle has been listed on CITES since 1975 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it isthreatened with extinction and that international trade is prohibited. The mean annual number of nestingturtles worldwide has decreased between 48% to 67% over the past 100 to 150 years (Seminoff 2004). In theAtlantic, 4 populations have shown declines of around 80%–90%, while 11 populations have shown increasesup to 113%. The largest increases in population size have occurred in the Western Atlantic region (Masion etal. 2010).

Hawksbill: The IUCN has classified hawksbill turtle as Critically Endangered with a decreasing population trend(Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). Hawksbill turtle has been listed on CITES since 1977 and is currently listed onCITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with extinction and that international trade is prohibited. Inthe Atlantic Ocean, there has been a population decrease of 80.5% over the past three generations (Mortimerand Donnelly 2008).

Leatherback: Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered by the Endangered Species Act (ESA)since 1970 (NMFS 2012). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherbackturtle as Critically Endangered with a decreasing population trend in 2000 (Martinez 2000). Leatherback turtlehas been listed on CITES since 1975 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatenedwith extinction and that international trade is prohibited. In the North Atlantic, the population size is estimatedto be between 34,000 and 94,000 (TEWG 2007).

Loggerhead: The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle asEndangered in 1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerheadis listed on Appendix I of CITES. There are an estimated 2,280 to 2,787 loggerhead turtles nesting annually inthe Mediterranean (Broderick et al. 2002). The majority of turtles nest in Greece and Turkey, which havedecreasing trends (though Greece may be stable) (NMFS 2009).

Olive ridley: The IUCN considers olive ridley sea turtle to be Vulnerable with a decreasing population trend.Olive ridley has been listed as Threatened on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012a)and is listed on CITES Appendix I. The arribada rookeries have decreased by 97%–99% while the non-arribada rookeries have increased 364% over time (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008).


48


Low Concern

Although capture rates of turtles in purse seine fisheries are small compared to those for longlines, gillnets,and trawls, bycatch also occurs in purse seine fisheries. There is evidence from other regions that theaccidental entanglement of turtles in fish aggregating devices (FADs) is a major concern (Gilman 2011). Thereare some management measures in place in this region to protect incidentally captured sea turtles, and thereare initiatives to design Ecological FADs that reduce incidental interactions (ICCAT 2013d), but implementationof these measures may not be 100%. We have therefore awarded a “low concern and not very low concernscore.

Rationale:

Green sea turtle: Only two occurrences of green sea turtle catch were reported in the Eastern Atlantic FADfishery between 1991 and 1997 (Menard et al. 2000). Between 2003 and 2007, nine turtles were observedcaught in the French and Spanish FAD fisheries (Amande et al. 2010). The occurrence rate per set in theFrench fishery (2005–2008) was 1.52 (Chassot et al. 2008). The observer rate for this cited study (Chassot etal. 2008) was around 3% of all fishing trips.

Kemp’s ridley: A total of three Kemp’s ridley turtles were observed caught in the French and Spanish FADfisheries between 2003 and 2007 (Amande et al. 2010). The occurrence rate per set in the French FAD fisherywas 1.52 between 2005 and 2008 (Chassot et al. 2008).

Leatherback: Five leatherback sea turtles were reported incidentally captured in the French and Spanish FADfisheries between 2003 and 2007 (Amande et al. 2010).

Loggerhead: Between 1991 and 1997, three loggerhead turtles were observed caught in the Eastern Atlantic(Menard et al. 2000) and five were reported captured between 2003 and 2007 in the French and Spanish FADfisheries (Amande et al. 2010).

Olive ridley: Only three olive ridley turtles were reported captured in the Spanish and French FAD fisheriesbetween 2003 and 2007 (Amande et al. 2000) and their occurrence rate per set in the French FAD fishery was1.52 between 2006 and 2007 (Chassot et al. 2008).


< 20%


49






Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 41 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blackfin tuna is asmall tuna species that reaches sexual maturity by 50 cm and 3 years of age. The maximum length attained isaround 108 cm and it lives to around 5 years of age. Blackfin tuna is a broadcast spawner and high-levelpredator in the ecosystem (Froese and Pauly 2014). These life history characteristics also suggest a moderatevulnerability level.


Moderate Concern

In Atlantic waters, blackfin tuna is assessed along with 13 other “small tuna” species. Currently, there is notenough information to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). According to the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), blackfin tuna is a species of Least Concern with a stable populationtrend and is considered one of the most common tuna species in the Western Atlantic (Collette et al. 2011a).We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because information on its status is unknown and it has amoderate vulnerability to fishing pressure.


Moderate Concern

Blackfin tuna makes up a small proportion of “small tuna” catches in the Atlantic Ocean. No assessment hasbeen conducted due to a lack of data. Landings have been variable over the years, peaking in the early 1990sbut showing no consistent trend over time (ICCAT 2012a). It is caught by a variety of gears but there is noindication that overfishing is occurring (Collette et al. 2011a). We have awarded a “moderate” concern scorebecause information on fishing mortality is not available.


< 20%

Purse seine fisheries have an average discard rate of 5%, although in the Atlantic this rate is slightly less at4.1% (Kelleher 2005). Discard rates in the combined purse seine fisheries (associated and unassociated) forFrance and Spain are predominantly made up of tunas (79% and 83%, respectively), rays (89% and 90%),bony fish (47% and 26%), sharks (31% and 45%), and billfish (1% and 15%). In these purse seine fisheries,juvenile skipjack made up the majority of discarded tuna bycatch (Amande et al. 2011). Discard rates aretypically higher in purse seine sets made on FADs compared to those in unassociated sets. In the French purse

50

BLACKFIN TUNA

TRIGGERFISH SPP.





seine fishery, 97% of discards were made on FAD sets, with spotted tuna and skipjack making up 50% and46%, respectively, of those discards (Chassot et al. 2008). In this fishery, tuna discard rates on FAD setsranged from 0%–4% during 2007.


Medium

Triggerfish have low to moderate vulnerability scores (32-44 out of 100) (Froese et al. 2013).


Moderate Concern

Several species of triggerfish have been assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN) and all have been assigned a Least Concern status (IUCN 2013). We have assigned a “moderate”concern score because no assessment has been conducted but they are listed as Least Concern by the IUCNand they have a moderate level of vulnerability to fishing.


Moderate Concern

Several species of triggerfish, including grey and bluespotted, are reported as common bycatch species inpurse seine fisheries. They can make up as much as 12% of the total catch (Mendard et al. 2000) and 59% of“other fish” total catch (Amande et al. 2010). Other information suggests occurrence rates per set of 16%(Chassot et al. 2008). But fishing mortality rates are unknown for these species, so we have awarded a“moderate” concern score.


< 20%


51

Appendix B: Update SummaryThe recommendations for albacore (associated and unassociated) and bigeye from the unassociated fisherywere removed in August 2016 due to low volume.

52

Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) · Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) Acanthocybium solandri,...

Documents

Transcript of Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) · Wahoo and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) Acanthocybium solandri,...